From the prefacing text, "This video provides a quick lesson on radio telescopes, a summary of the failure, and some discussion about the engineering lessons learned in the wake of the event." Hope you find it interesting & informative. 73, John, WØPV
Any new large instrument will likely not be operational until 2031 or later. A re-build is not imminent and may exceed financial resources the US is able to expend. The site is ideal for a re-build for ionospheric heating in the short term.
The Arecibo dish was not designed, ever, to last forever. Both the dish and the platform/feeds underwent considerable upgrades over the course of decades. One was past due, IMO. The corrosion cannot be underestimated as a contributor to the ultimate destruction. However, even without corrosion, the facility would have needed an upgrade. The problem is that little of the dish and facility infrastructure can be preserved for a future build. That means starting from scratch-- perhaps to the tune of a billion dollars ( say 2030 dollars) for a facility that exceeds capabilities of other facilities presently in construction. Think about how many years it took to get NASA a re-launch capability for manned earth orbit after the space shuttle... we aren't well skilled in this generation with 'better, faster, cheaper'. MO. 73 Chip W1YW
Here's another example of the drop in continuity of technical knowledge & skills between generations. Retired NASA Engineers Return to Fix Hubble Telescope While very glad for its so far successful outcome, I had to smirk a bit at the troubleshooting process. They were going down the wrong path suspecting just a digital processing issue. After calling in the OM's they finally realized it was a more analog-ish power supply glitch.
I spent a considerable amount of time at Arecibo and was a radio astronomy grad student at Cornell. It is painful to me and many,many others to see the demise of the facility. My point is that it would have happened at some point, and we should be careful to attain some research benefit--such as ionospheric heating--in the short term, while being realistic about what can be built in the long term. There are many other AO users who read these pages. They may pop in, and may have very different viewpoints 73 Chip W1YW
Put one on the "MOON" on both sides !!! before the China doe's & put a Satellite in orbit to send the data back here ! Phil ..
Very interesting, spelter sockets, low factor of safety, corrosion, de humidifying (or lack there of) cables. From the perspective of an uninformed observer, given when it was built, perhaps it should be considered fortunate it lasted as long as it did. Fascinating, thanks for posting.
It was a great resource and did the job it was set out to do. Nothing last forever!! The substantial cost to rebuild would be worth it. There was NO other place on earth that did what that dish did. We can rebuild it we have the technology!!!!
The unknown unknowns--the bane of all engineered projects. Including the design of nuclear reactors. 73, Jim EARTH: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
The designs of the telescope, as well as many other 50 and 60 year old projects, such as all the lunar landings, are products of the slide rule. It's amazing what was accomplished but it's time to move on and do things differently. By the way...very nice video report.
The Chinese have that super Big one now. And it is working , it is Five-hundred-meters. Sad the U.S. with all its scientific groups couldn't keep it going.
FAST does not illuminate the entire dish and actually is less sensitive than AO was. Also, it is not a radar astronomy facility. So while it LOOKS bigger, it does less. 73 Chip W1YW
